Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Gospel in Chairs
Brad Jersak's 2015 version of the Gospel in Chairs, originally composed by Fr. Anthony Carbo and borrowed by others like Steve Robinson and Brian Zahnd (who retitled it 'The Beautiful Gospel').
You are too late. It's already a done deal."No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (Jn 6:44). What the church needs is stronger unction (more drawing power), and this happens in revival.
You're probably tired of hearing from me. Nonetheless - for the sake of others who view this thread - one point bears repeating.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (Jn 6:44). What the church needs is stronger unction (more drawing power), and this happens in revival. Compared to time spent waiting on the Lord for power from on high (see Pentecost), any time spent on that video's man-made techniques is about 99% wasted time. This was the whole point of Galatians. Andrew Murray said it well. In the following statement, he insists that the ENTIRE CHURCH has failed to understand the Galatian epistle - which is pretty radical statement coming from a writer who aimed to be considerably ecumenical.
"The mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day even in the churches that are most confidently assured that they are free from the Galatian error. Just notice how often the doctrine of justification by faith is spoken of as if it were the chief teaching of the Galatian epistle. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit‟s indwelling as received by faith and our walking by the Spirit is hardly mentioned…[Unfortunately today] human effort and human arrangement [i.e. man-made techniques] take a much larger place than in the waiting on the power that comes from on high." (Andrew Murray, The Spirit of Christ (Springdale: Whitaker House, 1984), italics mine, pp. 192-93).
Elsewhere Murray affirmed that the whole point of the Galatian epistle was to reinstate the Pentecost-paradigm among them.
Thanks for the video - it's an excellent example of what the church should NOT be emphasizing, except as a crutch (in the sense explained in my other posts).
To summarize your view: Waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise is tantamount to doing nothing, it is useless, it accomplishes nothing, it is displeasing to God, and should be condemned and anathematized as vehemently as possible.For the sake of others who view this thread. Do not listen to a word this person says. He is effectively criticizing the entire church, regardless of denomination, for not following his personal views. He clings to a doctrine of one, himself, his opinion above all. Which, ironically, he admittedly does not practice himself. If you disagree in any way, you are accused of not caring about or understanding scripture.
He claims 100 billion souls are at stake, but advocates doing absolutely nothing about it unless his self-created ideal of 100% certainty is met. So what happens to those 100 billion souls if we follow his advice and wait? How many of those 100 billion die everyday while we wait? What about them? The only thing that is 100% certain is they will not see heaven if no one tells them about Jesus.
This is dangerous doctrine which should be ignored. The shaming techniques should ignored. If are the only one advocating an idea - an idea that is 100% theoretical and is not being practiced today by anyone - if there is zero proven fruit, then there comes a time to do some self examination and admit that perhaps it's not everyone else that is wrong, but you yourself.
The only crutch here is the junk that he is continually proposing. It allows him to criticize what everyone else is doing while releasing himself from any personal responsibility. In reality the only fruit these ideas produce is the kind that harms the Body of Christ.
If I could emphasize this even more strongly I would.
Self-created? A bit of an overstatement isn't it? The word Trinity isn't in scripture - does that mean it's a self-created ideal? The real question is whether there is a substantive biblical basis for it. You haven't rebutted mine. Let's review, shall we?....his self-created ideal of 100% certainty...
That was extremely uncalled for. If personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and your theories I'd suggest a little more waiting on the Lord and a little less forums.To summarize your view: Waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise is tantamount to doing nothing, it is useless, it accomplishes nothing, it is displeasing to God, and should be condemned and anathematized as vehemently as possible.
Question: Have you read even one chapter of the Bible? Ever?
My assessment of your statement was correct - and it stands until you publicly retract it.That was extremely uncalled for. If personal attacks make you feel better about yourself and your theories I'd suggest a little more waiting on the Lord and a little less forums.
You are just doing exactly what I outlined. This is a cop out. A bait and switch. No one here has EVER said that praise and prayer are doing nothing except you. We can praise and pray AND go out and evangelize. It's not one or the other.
No I did not. I condemned your advice of waiting for 100% certainty, which is in no way biblical.Let's be clear, topher694:
You condemned my advice of waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise. You insinuated that it accomplishes nothing for the 100 billion souls. Either recant your condemnation, or accept my assessment of it. You can't have it both ways.
Um...yes you did. Because the 100% certainty only specifies the signal indicating the end of the process. The process is to pray and praise God in the usual way. You condemned such project vehemently. Hence my assessment was accurate.No I did not. I condemned your advice of waiting for 100% certainty, which is in no way biblical.
This twisting of words in an attempt to make me look bad and you look like a victim is one more example of horrible behavior and poor fruit.
And THAT is your opinion, and your opinion alone. No one else agrees with that. None. You are once again doing exactly what I said. Hence my assessment was accurate and your assessment was an assessment of one misguided person and nothing more.Um...yes you did. Because the 100% certainty only specifies the signal indicating the end of the process. The process is to pray and praise God in the usual way. You condemned such project vehemently. Hence my assessment was accurate.
Backpedal all you want - the facts remain.And THAT is your opinion, and your opinion alone. No one else agrees with that. None. You are once again doing exactly what I said. Hence my assessment was accurate and your assessment was an assessment of one misguided person and nothing more.
his self-created ideal of 100% certainty...
It is because you are the only one who sees it that way. You twist their words to fit your theology of one, just like you twist our words to defend it. Horrible behavior, poor fruit.Charles Finney was the most effective revival preacher in American history. Even my history textbook at a (secular) liberal arts university stated that he literally changed the course of American history. Some speculate that as many as 50,000 people got saved per week in some of his revivals.
Finney claimed that the key to his success was waiting upon the Lord in prayer and praise for
(1) Power from on high (he actually wrote a book by this name)
(2) An assurance of victory in each town where he preached.
He applied this practice not only to entire towns, but even specific individuals. (Pastor Yonggi Cho did the same thing). Here's an example from Finney's autobiography, where he was praying for the salvation of a specific woman:
"[As] I pled for her God said to me, 'Yes! yes!'…and I felt a complete certainty that her salvation was secure" (Charles Finney, Autobiography, (1876), from the chapter, 'Beginning of His Work', italics mine).
I don't know how to read this other than 100% certainty. And I mentioned both Finney and Cho earlier in this thread. So when you claim that I am the only one who has believed in 100% certainty, is it because you didn't read what I wrote? Or is it an outright lie?
You're very intent on attacking me personally. However, I don't see any strong theological argumentation coming from your end.It is because you are the only one who sees it that way. You twist their words to fit your theology of one, just like you twist our words to defend it. Horrible behavior, poor fruit.
I have pointed out your actual behavior on this thread. You are the one who attacks people personally. You question their understanding, their convictions, their commitment, their intentions. And I have yet to see you acknowledge it or apologize.You're very intent on attacking me personally. However, I don't see any strong theological argumentation coming from your end.
On the contrary, everyone has an opportunity to rebut my arguments.I have pointed out your actual behavior on this thread. You are the one who attacks people personally. You question their understanding, their convictions, their commitment, their intentions. And I have yet to see you acknowledge it or apologize.
No one has much of a chance to put forth any sort of argument because you constantly hijack threads by spamming your theology and insulting those who say anything different.
Are you implying that 100% certainty is impossible? I think not, right? I mean when Paul finished Romans, did he release it with the disclaimer, "Not really sure all this stuff is true, but I sure hope it is!"his self-created ideal of 100% certainty...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?